President Barack Obama said he and 20 company executives made “good progress” during a four and a half hour meeting toward establishing closer cooperation between government and business to accelerate the U.S. economic recovery.

“We focused on jobs and investment, and they feel optimistic that by working together we can get some of that cash off the sidelines,” Obama said as he left the session yesterday, referring to the almost $2 trillion that he said companies have amassed.

The meeting with business leaders, who included UBS AG Chairman for the Americas Robert Wolf and Honeywell International Inc. Chairman David Cote, was part of the administration’s campaign to heal a strained relationship with the business community and to collaborate on ways to boost jobs, with the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.8 percent.

Held at Blair House, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, the executives and administration officials conferred on issues such as tax overhaul, education, exports, regulation and the budget deficit, as well as ways to encourage businesses to spend and invest. While Obama has held dozens of meetings with business-leaders during his term, attendees said they expected more follow-up from yesterday’s summit, either from the president himself or top aides.

Executives said it was critical that the administration continue the dialogue.

‘Not Episodic’

“This meeting is not episodic; we think it will be continual,” Motorola Inc. Co-CEO Greg Brown said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “We agreed on a number of us engaging on different issues within the administration. It’s not about optics, it’s about delivery and we are all very focused on that.”

Obama is generating more optimism among CEOs after a series of business-friendly overtures, including a deal to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and efforts to boost exports such as a U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement and a loosening of controls on some technology sales.

The administration has been seeking to strengthen relationships with the business community following criticism from some executives and business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, of the administration’s overhaul of the health-care system and financial regulations. Obama said private companies are crucial to the U.S. climbing out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

‘Let’s Restart’

“Things were said on both sides that shouldn’t have been and did not further the opportunity to work together,” Honeywell’s Cote said as he arrived at Blair House yesterday. “This is our chance to do that. I give the president a lot of credit for being the man big enough to say ‘Let’s restart, let’s work on how do we create a more vibrant economy.’”

Obama began the meeting with a message to the corporate leaders, saying they represent why the U.S. is unique, what is best about the country’s entrepreneurial spirit and that he wanted to dispel any notion that his administration wanted to inhibit their success, according to one person in the room.

The president asked the executives for examples of policies that weren’t working. One idea was to cut tax rates on accumulated foreign earnings that are repatriated to the U.S. like Congress authorized for one year in 2004, according to participants in the room.

:confused:Overseas Earnings

While Obama has called on the CEOs to spend the $2 trillion in cash their companies have accumulated on job creation, the executives said much of that is earnings from overseas sales that are retained abroad to avoid paying U.S. corporate income tax.:confused: U.S.-based multinational corporations pay corporate income tax on earnings when they are brought back to the U.S. If the revenue remains abroad, either in cash or investment in overseas facilities, the money isn’t taxed.

Obama said he would consider the issue and asked what the executives would be willing to give up in other corporate tax rates to make sure it remains revenue neutral.

The executives also brought up the issue of U.S. global competition. With respect to China specifically, they asked Obama to ensure trade goes both ways, attendees said.

A number of the executives at the meeting serve on several of Obama’s outside advisory boards, including Wolf; Cote; Boeing Co. CEO James McNerney; General Electric Co. Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt; United Parcel Service Inc. CEO Scott Davis; Penny Pritzker, who led Obama’s campaign fundraising effort and is chairman of Pritzker Realty Group; Mark Gallogly, founder and managing partner of Centerbridge Partners LP; and venture capitalist John Doerr, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

After the meeting, Boeing’s McNerney said Obama told the executives that the administration is committed to pursuing free-trade agreements that would increase U.S. exports and jobs. Obama set a tone for the meeting that “we’re all in this together,” McNerney said on Bloomberg Television.

Executives at the meeting agreed with the president’s assessment that the two sides made progress.

“It’s important for business and government to be able to work together,” Cote said. “I came away feeling very good.”

The president of the united states asks a room full of billionaires leading companies which have had the most profitable year in all of history to stop making americans starve/freeze to death in the street. the answer they give is to tell him to fuck himself because they're too busy committing tax evasion on a sum of money equal to 40 million times the median household income. His response is to ask them how much more tax evasion they'd feel comfortable with. This is called making progress.

why does obama hate business?! socialist?! class warrior?!

oh wait......:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei

12-31-2010, 08:10 PM

What is it called when the country is run by an alliance between Big Business and Government?

The U.S. economy entered into a recession at the very end of calendar year 2007 that has
had a profound effect on the nation’s workers, sharply reducing employment levels, increasing
the national unemployment rate above 10% by the end of 2009, and driving up the number of
underemployed and the hidden unemployed. While real aggregate output as measured by the
nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) bottomed out in the second quarter of calendar year
2009, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of business cycle dating,
has not yet identified the ending date of the recession. In contrast to the recent recovery of
product output growth, labor markets continued to deteriorate through the end of calendar year
2009 with only a modest improvement in the first quarter of 2010. The recession of 2007-2009
was converted into a Great Recession for U.S. workers. To explain how this came about is the
purpose of this paper. Substantial shedding of employees and cuts in weekly hours of work by
corporations allowed labor productivity to rise sharply after 2008. None of these productivity
gains were shared by wage and salary workers in the form of higher real weekly earnings. These
productivity gains were used to raise corporate profits at a higher relative rate than in any other
post-World War II recession.

welp

Rockntractor

12-31-2010, 08:17 PM

What is it called when the country is run by an alliance between Big Business and Government?

Socialism!

oh wait....

Fascism , National socialism Nazi style.

Wei Wu Wei

12-31-2010, 08:27 PM

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2010

The 17th annual executive compensation survey looks at how CEOs laid off thousands while raking in millions.

Month after month, the headlines have pounded home a remarkably consistent message: Corporate executives, here in the Great Recession, are suffering, too.

Corporate executives, in reality, are not suffering at all. Their pay, to be sure, dipped on average in 2009 from 2008 levels, just as their pay in 2008, the first Great Recession year, dipped somewhat from 2007. But executive pay overall remains far above inflationadjusted levels of years past. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, CEO pay in 2009 more than doubled the CEO pay average for the decade of the 1990s, more than quadrupled the CEO pay average for the 1980s, and ran approximately eight times the CEO average for all the decades of the mid-20th century.

American workers, by contrast, are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s. Back in those years, precious few top executives made over 30 times what their workers made. In 2009, we calculate in the 17th annual Executive Excess, CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged 263 times the average compensation of American workers. CEOs are clearly not hurting.

But they are, as we detail in these pages, causing others to needlessly hurt — by cutting jobs to feather their own already comfortable executive nests. In 2009, the CEOs who slashed their payrolls the deepest took home 42 percent more compensation than the year’s chief executive pay average for S&P 500 companies. Most careful analysts of the high-finance meltdown that ushered in the Great Recession have concluded that excessive executive compensation played a prime causal role. Outrageously high rewards gave executives an incentive to behave outrageously, to take the sorts of reckless risks that would eventually endanger our entire economy.

The president of the united states asks a room full of billionaires leading companies which have had the most profitable year in all of history to stop making americans starve/freeze to death in the street. the answer they give is to tell him to fuck himself because they're too busy committing tax evasion on a sum of money equal to 40 million times the median household income. His response is to ask them how much more tax evasion they'd feel comfortable with. This is called making progress.

why does obama hate business?! socialist?! class warrior?!

oh wait......:rolleyes:

If the tax code were not so oppressive, they might not have to work so hard to avoid paying them - and they could concentrate on running their businesses and creating jobs.

Madisonian

12-31-2010, 08:35 PM

What is it called when the country is run by an alliance between Big Business and Government?

Socialism!

oh wait....

I believe it would more correctly be termed corporatism.
In the classic definition of economic socialism there would be no private ownership of the means of production and no need for a stock market.

Going back a bit to your first post, I don't care who does what in any country on the planet, there will always be poor people and people that starve or freeze to death, just as there always has been.
As long as people have free will, there will be those who decide poorly for whatever reason and there is not a single founding document that guarantees equal outcome, not even if there is equal effort.

I would much rather see these offshore billions brought back home and invested here, but these companies did not get all this money by being stupid.

And as an investor either directly in equities or a second party through mutual funds and similar instruments, I thank them immensely for these profits and productivity gains.
The gains on my Ford stock alone will allow me to retire a year or so earlier than I had planned, making room for a new dot on the labor histogram.

Wei Wu Wei

12-31-2010, 08:43 PM

I believe it would more correctly be termed corporatism.
In the classic definition of economic socialism there would be no private ownership of the means of production and no need for a stock market.

Not quite. You are describing something else, but socialism can function perfectly well in a democracy and in fact it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. We don't ahve to be totally capitalist or totally corporatists or socialist. Mixed economies are the reality, it's about direction.

Socialism means the government works for working people. it's policies aimed at meeting need rather than generating profits, and focuses on the workers of the country rather than just the billionaires.

Going back a bit to your first post, I don't care who does what in any country on the planet, there will always be poor people and people that starve or freeze to death, just as there always has been.

This isn't true. Technological advances have finally made it possible for humans to grow more than enough food for everyone on the planet. Now it only takes a push towards making it a priority to end starvation.

I have no illusions about a communist utopian world, but we have the technology to create mini-big bangs in laboratories, create brand new life, and grow massive unprecedented amounts of food. It can be done.

As long as people have free will, there will be those who decide poorly for whatever reason and there is not a single founding document that guarantees equal outcome, not even if there is equal effort.

That's fine.

I would much rather see these offshore billions brought back home and invested here, but these companies did not get all this money by being stupid.

It's not about smart or stupid. Intelligence used improperly can harm many people.

PoliCon

12-31-2010, 08:52 PM

What is it called when the country is run by an alliance between Big Business and Government?

Money for Nothing[/u]]
Business was the biggest beneficiary of policy stimulus: it didn’t have to pay for the recovery. Consequently, the profit recovery was strong even though the growth recovery was weak. If corporates don’t start ‘paying’ – hiring and, to a lesser extent, investing – then expect a double-dip. If they do start to pay, the recovery will continue, but it won’t be as profitable as the first phase of the expansion. The Great Swap that ended the Great Recession involved a big transfer of income from the public sector to the private sector. The ultimate beneficiary was corporates

It's inverted Socialism. A strong state apperatus with heavy economic influence that works in favor of the wealthy, the owners, and the corporate institutions, at the expense of the working people.

Socialism works in favor of the working people, the majority, those who do not already have incredible social power through ownership.

From the horses mouth, a proud Fascist:

Our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head.

PoliCon

12-31-2010, 09:03 PM

It's inverted Socialism. A strong state apperatus with heavy economic influence that works in favor of the wealthy, the owners, and the corporate institutions, at the expense of the working people.

Socialism works in favor of the working people, the majority, those who do not already have incredible social power through ownership.

From the horses mouth, a proud Fascist:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

. . . .

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)I do wish you would get a clue. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)

Madisonian

12-31-2010, 09:03 PM

Not quite. You are describing something else, but socialism can function perfectly well in a democracy and in fact it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. We don't ahve to be totally capitalist or totally corporatists or socialist. Mixed economies are the reality, it's about direction.

Socialism means the government works for working people. it's policies aimed at meeting need rather than generating profits, and focuses on the workers of the country rather than just the billionaires.

Then define your terms before presenting the argument. You start with a description of economic socialism and then when I refute that, you claim political socialism.

This isn't true. Technological advances have finally made it possible for humans to grow more than enough food for everyone on the planet. Now it only takes a push towards making it a priority to end starvation.

I have no illusions about a communist utopian world, but we have the technology to create mini-big bangs in laboratories, create brand new life, and grow massive unprecedented amounts of food. It can be done.

Again, I was talking about the reality in this country and the world, not the academic hypothesis regarding adequate food production.

You really need to get your head out of the academic ass it currently occupies. There is a real world out there that has little to no patience for educated academia proposing solutions to problems that it can't comprehend.
For all your reading and studying and time spent in professorial never, never land, in actuality you no nothing about that which you speak.

Wei Wu Wei

12-31-2010, 09:04 PM

I do wish you would get a clue. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)

A trusty website I see:

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty.

lol why don't we go see what the CATO institute thinks about this?

m00

12-31-2010, 09:06 PM

What is it called when the country is run by an alliance between Big Business and Government?

Socialism!

oh wait....

That's not really an alliance. That's an incompetent president who rolls over whenever someone challenges him.

On edit: I see what you are doing. Pinning Obama's failures on Capitalism.

Wei Wu Wei

12-31-2010, 09:08 PM

Then define your terms before presenting the argument. You start with a description of economic socialism and then when I refute that, you claim political socialism.

Fair enough. Words like Socialism have been used so much in so many contexts by so many people that it is pretty impossible to have a sensible discussion about it without first agreeing on what it is we are talking about.

Some people think Socialism means Stalinist authoritarianism, some think it means Communism, some think it means the system they have in Scandinavian nations.

I don't think it'll be appropriate to argue over which is the "correct" definition, but it would be to be honest about what it is we mean when we say it.

Again, I was talking about the reality in this country and the world, not the academic hypothesis regarding adequate food production.

You really need to get your head out of the academic ass it currently occupies. There is a real world out there that has little to no patience for educated academia proposing solutions to problems that it can't comprehend.
For all your reading and studying and time spent in professorial never, never land, in actuality you no nothing about that which you speak.

This isn't just some philosophic musing, technology can accomplish many things but I'm not here to talk about how to solve all the worlds problems or end suffering, I'm just looking for ways to continuously improve, small steps at a time.

Wei Wu Wei

12-31-2010, 09:09 PM

That's not really an alliance. That's an incompetent president who rolls over whenever someone challenges him.

On edit: I see what you are doing. Pinning Obama's failures on Capitalism.

I'll be the first to Place Obama's failures directly onto Obama.

Although there are definitely problems and contradictions within capitalism, as in any system.

PoliCon

12-31-2010, 09:12 PM

A trusty website I see:

lol why don't we go see what the CATO institute thinks about this?

Instead of resorting to the poisoning the well fallacy - how about dealing with the points of the argument being made?

m00

12-31-2010, 09:14 PM

I'll be the first to Place Obama's failures directly onto Obama.

Although there are definitely problems and contradictions within capitalism, as in any system.

Just pointing out that Capitalism doesn't mean "Government gives a lot of taxpayer money to private businesses no strings attached." It doesn't mean "Government lets industry write energy policy." It doesn't mean "Government lets some businesses avoid paying taxes that everyone else has to pay." It doesn't mean "Government gives help to businesses that contribute to political campaigns."

Madisonian

12-31-2010, 09:23 PM

Fair enough. Words like Socialism have been used so much in so many contexts by so many people that it is pretty impossible to have a sensible discussion about it without first agreeing on what it is we are talking about.

Some people think Socialism means Stalinist authoritarianism, some think it means Communism, some think it means the system they have in Scandinavian nations.

I don't think it'll be appropriate to argue over which is the "correct" definition, but it would be to be honest about what it is we mean when we say it.

This is why I don't think I have ever referred to our current Oval Office affirmative action placement as a Socialist and bristle when the word is used to describe him.
His actions as shown by some of the bailouts of financial institutions and his input on the GM bankruptcy restructuring place him more as a Fascist than a Socialist. He is a firm believer in state sponsored corporatism the same as Mussolini was and his pressing of the Affordable Care Act along with Cap and Tax only reinforce that notion in my mind anyway.
A true socialist ala Bernie Sanders would have went single payer or universal, not this insurance company bonanza.

Sonnabend

12-31-2010, 09:39 PM

CEO positions are filled by men and women with skills you will never have, and they are paid accordingly The market pays them for those skills. Every post you make comes down to "gimme other peoples money". You still ain't getting it so STFU.

AmPat

01-01-2011, 12:43 PM

This is why I don't think I have ever referred to our current Oval Office affirmative action placement as a Socialist and bristle when the word is used to describe him.
His actions as shown by some of the bailouts of financial institutions and his input on the GM bankruptcy restructuring place him more as a Fascist than a Socialist. He is a firm believer in state sponsored corporatism the same as Mussolini was and his pressing of the Affordable Care Act along with Cap and Tax only reinforce that notion in my mind anyway.
A true socialist ala Bernie Sanders would have went single payer or universal, not this insurance company bonanza.
true words.:cool:

PoliCon

01-01-2011, 12:47 PM

Just pointing out that Capitalism doesn't mean "Government gives a lot of taxpayer money to private businesses no strings attached." It doesn't mean "Government lets industry write energy policy." It doesn't mean "Government lets some businesses avoid paying taxes that everyone else has to pay." It doesn't mean "Government gives help to businesses that contribute to political campaigns."

right - those things are nascent fascism.

AmPat

01-01-2011, 01:04 PM

The meeting with business leaders, who included UBS AG Chairman for the Americas Robert Wolf and Honeywell International Inc. Chairman David Cote, was part of the administration’s campaign to heal a strained relationship with the business community and to collaborate on ways to boost jobs, with the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.8 percent.

Have you stopped to ask why this economic retard had to have this meeting in the first place? He is a completely unprepared Marxist moron who caused and exacerbated the problem, then he wants to "act" like he is concerned and pose as though he is "working" on the problem.

What "words" has the Teleprompter-in-Chief uttered that has done one thing to improve the economy?:rolleyes:

If this narcissistic Marxist wants to fix the situation, he needs to get the H out of the way and start pushing for the removal of the chains that his and past "progressive" administrations have placed on businesses.:cool:

NJCardFan

01-01-2011, 01:42 PM

I'll be the first to Place Obama's failures directly onto Obama.

Although there are definitely problems and contradictions within capitalism, as in any system.

And there are more issues with socialism or communism. The difference between socialism and capitalism, in spite of the obvious, is that with socialism, there is no middle class. You're either a prole or bourgeois. You are either very rich or poor. There is no in between. Capitalism allows for a greater number of people to get a slice of the pie. It's all up to you. This is why we have people going from mowing lawns into successful landscaping businesses.

Wei Wu Wei

01-01-2011, 01:51 PM

And there are more issues with socialism or communism. The difference between socialism and capitalism, in spite of the obvious, is that with socialism, there is no middle class. You're either a prole or bourgeois. You are either very rich or poor. There is no in between. Capitalism allows for a greater number of people to get a slice of the pie. It's all up to you. This is why we have people going from mowing lawns into successful landscaping businesses.

Well one form of socialism is what they have in Scandinavian nations. They call it democratic socialism, or social democracy. The way they do it surely allows for a middle class, their middle class does really well and their rich people are still pretty damn rich.

What you describe sounds like a brutal oversimplification of marx's analysis of capitalism. I don't know any socialist who wants a two-tier class structure, although some previous attempts at socialism have certainly failed and did result in what you describe

AmPat

01-01-2011, 01:59 PM

I don't know any socialist who wants a two-tier class structure, although some previous attempts at socialism have certainly failed and did result in what you describe

How many capitalist countries lead or have led to this? Even our poorest are better off than other countries.

Wei Wu Wei

01-01-2011, 02:03 PM

Just pointing out that Capitalism doesn't mean "Government gives a lot of taxpayer money to private businesses no strings attached." It doesn't mean "Government lets industry write energy policy." It doesn't mean "Government lets some businesses avoid paying taxes that everyone else has to pay." It doesn't mean "Government gives help to businesses that contribute to political campaigns."

I agree that this is not what capitalism is supposed to be, this is corporatism or something in that direction. However, this is where we are going, it is where we're at, and we need to do something about it.

I think that capitalism, like all systems, are transitory in nature and always in motion. I don't believe there ever was a golden age of 'correct capitalism' , but even if there was, the problem is that systems are always in motion and because of the internal contradictions within capitalism, this move towards corporatism may be the natural flow of the system unless working people struggle for their own interests.

Wei Wu Wei

01-01-2011, 02:06 PM

How many capitalist countries lead or have led to this? Even our poorest are better off than other countries.

Ours did, for a short period of time. However authentic leftists struggled for working class rights a century ago that paved the way for an explosion of the middle class, a middle class that is shrinking today.

Also I disagree about our poor. There are many places where it is better to live if you are poor. Other countries prioritize differently, working hard to allocate their smaller resources for meeting the needs of the people, rAther thAn protecting their wealthy. Of course, the details differ depending on which country we look at.

Apocalypse

01-01-2011, 02:08 PM

I must have been doing too much drinking last night. Wei isn't sounding like he use too. Starting to sound like he's giving up a bit on the far left crap and moving more right.

Zathras

01-01-2011, 02:09 PM

You know Wee Wee, you could have saved all that bandwidth and just posted "I hate anyone who has more than me and want what they have taken away and given to me".

Just the same old class warfare bullshit you post over and over again...as usual.

Constitutionally Speaking

01-01-2011, 02:13 PM

It's inverted Socialism. A strong state apperatus with heavy economic influence that works in favor of the wealthy, the owners, and the corporate institutions, at the expense of the working people.

Socialism works in favor of the working people, the majority, those who do not already have incredible social power through ownership.

From the horses mouth, a proud Fascist:

Wei, there is NO PRACTICAL difference between socialism and fascism. NONE . Those who tell you socialism is for the working people are LYING to you. It is merely rhetoric. The SAME rhetoric that Hitler used to gain control in Germany.

Wei Wu Wei

01-01-2011, 02:17 PM

I'm fine with what I have I dont care for nice cars or designer clothes or fancy restaurants. I shop at thrift stores because I'm not going to spend $180 to have some douchebag's name on my jeans. This is not about me. What I do care about is making sure that working class people, the ones who turn the gears of the machine and actually produce wealth with their labor, are able to get what they need and to be able to more fully participate in running our society.

Wei Wu Wei

01-01-2011, 02:20 PM

Wei, there is NO PRACTICAL difference between socialism and fascism. NONE . Those who tell you socialism is for the working people are LYING to you. It is merely rhetoric. The SAME rhetoric that Hitler used to gain control in Germany.

Would you support a pro-worker government if it actually was held accountable by the people and worked for them? It doesn't matter what we call it, it only matters whTat it does.

Zathras

01-01-2011, 02:23 PM

I'm fine with what I have I dont care for nice cars or designer clothes or fancy restaurants. I shop at thrift stores because I'm not going to spend $180 to have some douchebag's name on my jeans. This is not about me. What I do care about is making sure that working class people, the ones who turn the gears of the machine and actually produce wealth with their labor, are able to get what they need and to be able to more fully participate in running our society.

And if that means stealing from the rich to do it, stealing from the people who earned what they have in a perfectly legal manner, and giving it to people sitting on their collective asses doing nothing, you're ok with it.

Wei Wu Wei

01-01-2011, 02:53 PM

And if that means stealing from the rich to do it, stealing from the people who earned what they have in a perfectly legal manner, and giving it to people sitting on their collective asses doing nothing, you're ok with it.

When it comes to a point of conflict,as these things tend to do, and I am forced to compromise on my ideal solutions and I have to pick sides, then I support the working people, the middle class, and the poor. If it means some billionaire has to pay a little higher tax rate on his mansion so that children who are poor by no fault of their owncan get a decent education, then so be it.

PoliCon

01-01-2011, 04:09 PM

Well one form of socialism is what they have in Scandinavian nations. They call it democratic socialism, or social democracy. The way they do it surely allows for a middle class, their middle class does really well and their rich people are still pretty damn rich.

What you describe sounds like a brutal oversimplification of marx's analysis of capitalism. I don't know any socialist who wants a two-tier class structure, although some previous attempts at socialism have certainly failed and did result in what you describe

And do you think it's because they're rich are taxed at a higher rate? Do you think we should increase taxes on the rich here in America?

Zathras

01-01-2011, 04:35 PM

When it comes to a point of conflict,as these things tend to do, and I am forced to compromise on my ideal solutions and I have to pick sides, then I support the working people, the middle class, and the poor. If it means some billionaire has to pay a little higher tax rate on his mansion so that children who are poor by no fault of their owncan get a decent education, then so be it.

So you're in favor of theft by the government to moneys they have no right to.

NJCardFan

01-01-2011, 04:39 PM

When it comes to a point of conflict,as these things tend to do, and I am forced to compromise on my ideal solutions and I have to pick sides, then I support the working people, the middle class, and the poor. If it means some billionaire has to pay a little higher tax rate on his mansion so that children who are poor by no fault of their owncan get a decent education, then so be it.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.-Frederic Bastiat

This is exactly what you and your ilk want.

m00

01-01-2011, 07:59 PM

I agree that this is not what capitalism is supposed to be, this is corporatism or something in that direction. However, this is where we are going, it is where we're at, and we need to do something about it.

I think that capitalism, like all systems, are transitory in nature and always in motion. I don't believe there ever was a golden age of 'correct capitalism' , but even if there was, the problem is that systems are always in motion and because of the internal contradictions within capitalism, this move towards corporatism may be the natural flow of the system unless working people struggle for their own interests.

Well you realize that it's the regulation which comes from Socialism (whereby the government picks winners) which moves capitalism into fascist state-run corporatism. It isn't a coincidence that the Nazis were National Socialists. So no, this isn't a natural outcome of capitalism. But it seems to be a natural outcome of applying socialism to capitalism. Also see: Venezuela.

PoliCon

01-01-2011, 08:11 PM

Ours did, for a short period of time. However authentic leftists struggled for working class rights a century ago that paved the way for an explosion of the middle class, a middle class that is shrinking today. BULLSHIT. :rolleyes: Government interference in the markets led to the monopolies and trusts of the late 19th century and it was leftist PROGRESSIVISM that led to that government interference in the first place.

Also I disagree about our poor. There are many places where it is better to live if you are poor. Other countries prioritize differently, working hard to allocate their smaller resources for meeting the needs of the people, rAther thAn protecting their wealthy. Of course, the details differ depending on which country we look at.Protecting their wealthy? :rolleyes: That's just commie talk for defending private property rights. AND BTW - it's not the governments job to meet my needs. It's MY JOB to meet my needs.

Madisonian

01-01-2011, 09:15 PM

BULLSHIT. :rolleyes: Government interference in the markets led to the monopolies and trusts of the late 19th century and it was leftist PROGRESSIVISM that led to that government interference in the first place.

True and false.
It was the government intervention that led to some of the first monopolies in oil, banking, railroad and industry in the 1850's to the early 1900's.
Many of these early tycoons such as John Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Mellon, William Vanderbilt among others were hardly leftist progressives in any sense of the word.
It was at the request of people such as these that the great monopolies were created, not leftist progressives.

PoliCon

01-01-2011, 09:51 PM

True and false.
It was the government intervention that led to some of the first monopolies in oil, banking, railroad and industry in the 1850's to the early 1900's.
Many of these early tycoons such as John Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Mellon, William Vanderbilt among others were hardly leftist progressives in any sense of the word.
It was at the request of people such as these that the great monopolies were created, not leftist progressives.

I'm not claiming that those who won the monopolies were leftist progressives - I'm saying the policies that allowed them to get their monopolies and trusts were leftist progressive.

Madisonian

01-01-2011, 10:03 PM

I'm not claiming that those who won the monopolies were leftist progressives - I'm saying the policies that allowed them to get their monopolies and trusts were leftist progressive.

The "policies" that allowed them to get the monopolies and trusts are the same ones that have been in place since the dawn of governments - cronyism and political payoffs.
Unfortunately, both of those transcend political party affiliation.

Wei Wu Wei

01-01-2011, 10:15 PM

I'm not claiming that those who won the monopolies were leftist progressives - I'm saying the policies that allowed them to get their monopolies and trusts were leftist progressive.

Help me out here I don't understand. How were these policies leftist and how did they lead to monopolies?

Also, with any policy or move or ideological guidelines there will always be unintended consequences. This is something we must accept andcontinuously work towards improving

PoliCon

01-01-2011, 11:29 PM

Help me out here I don't understand. How were these policies leftist and how did they lead to monopolies?

Also, with any policy or move or ideological guidelines there will always be unintended consequences. This is something we must accept andcontinuously work towards improving

Take the rail roads as a prime example. Government interference in the rail roads - including government grants - resulted in poorly planned and built railroads. It also resulted in railroad monopolies and ultimately killed off all but the companies who were best able to gather to themselves government favors and grants.

Rockntractor

01-01-2011, 11:54 PM

Take the rail roads as a prime example. Government interference in the rail roads - including government grants - resulted in poorly planned and built railroads. It also resulted in railroad monopolies and ultimately killed off all but the companies who were best able to gather to themselves government favors and grants.